Sensitivity of Taphonomic Signatures to Sample Size, Sieve Size, Damage Scoring System, and Target Taxa

Other| February 01, 2001 Sensitivity of Taphonomic Signatures to Sample Size, Sieve Size, Damage Scoring System, and Target Taxa SUSAN M. KIDWELL; SUSAN M. KIDWELL 1Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 5734 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637 Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar THOMAS A. ROTHFUS; THOMAS A. ROTHFUS 1Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 5734 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637 Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar MAIRI M.R. BEST MAIRI M.R. BEST 1Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 5734 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637 Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information SUSAN M. KIDWELL 1Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 5734 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637 THOMAS A. ROTHFUS 1Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 5734 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637 MAIRI M.R. BEST 1Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 5734 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637 Publisher: SEPM Society for Sedimentary Geology Accepted: 03 Oct 2000 First Online: 03 Mar 2017 Online Issn: 1938-5323 Print Issn: 0883-1351 Society for Sedimentary Geology PALAIOS (2001) 16 (1): 26–52. https://doi.org/10.1669/0883-1351(2001)016<0026:SOTSTS>2.0.CO;2 Article history Accepted: 03 Oct 2000 First Online: 03 Mar 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation SUSAN M. KIDWELL, THOMAS A. ROTHFUS, MAIRI M.R. BEST; Sensitivity of Taphonomic Signatures to Sample Size, Sieve Size, Damage Scoring System, and Target Taxa. PALAIOS 2001;; 16 (1): 26–52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1669/0883-1351(2001)016<0026:SOTSTS>2.0.CO;2 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyPALAIOS Search Advanced Search Abstract The sensitivity of taphonomic signatures to a battery of common sampling and analytic procedures is tested here using modern bivalve death assemblages from the San Blas Archipelago, Caribbean Panama, to determine (a) the magnitude of methodological artifacts and, thus, the comparability of taphofacies patterns among studies; and (b) the most efficient and robust means for acquiring damage profiles (taphonomic signatures) of death assemblages both ancient and modern. Damage frequency distributions do not stabilize below sample sizes of 120–150 individuals. Using damage to the >8 mm portion of the assemblage as a baseline (interior damage only, fragments included), it is found that qualitative trends among environments (higher damage levels in reefal skeletal gravel versus mud) and the rank-order importance of taphonomic variables per environment (intensity of damage from encrustation, boring, fine-scale alteration, edge-rounding, fragmentation) are robust to most methodological decisions. The exception is the use of target taxa: of three genera tested, only one was sensitive to the same suite of environmental differences as the total-assemblage, and taxa had disparate rank-ordering of variables. In contrast to the general robustness of qualitative trends, quantitative damage levels are affected significantly by methodology. Specifically, the measured frequency of damage is generally lower for finer size fractions and finer sieve sizes, for whole shells versus fragments, for taxonomically well-resolved specimens, for infaunal versus epifaunal species regardless of mineralogy, and for interior surfaces versus exterior or total surface area of shells. Full frequency-distribution data on states of taphonomic damage are most powerful for differentiating samples, but if single-value metrics are desired, the frequency of high-intensity damage is more powerful—and shows less between-operator variance—than presence-absence data or average damage state. To maximize the detection of damage and of between-environment differences in taphonomic signature, and to foster between-study comparisons, the following are recommended: (1) analysis of discrete size-fractions rather than broad spectra and, in particular, the separate treatment of coarse size fractions (>4 mm); (2) examination of complete assemblages (fragments as well as whole specimens; all species or broad subsets of species rather than select taxa); (3) variables scored independently (e.g., encrustation v. boring) rather than grouped into summary grades; and (4) evaluation of rank-ordering of variables in plots of threshold damage profiles as a complement to ternary taphograms. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.